faf_get_orchestration_policy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, no side effects, pure introspection, no drift detection, no signals, no receipt. This is comprehensive for a safe introspection tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences. First sentence captures purpose and return. Second lists fields. Third summarizes what it is not. Efficient and front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, single-parameter, read-only tool, the description fully explains its purpose, behavior, and return value. No output schema exists, but the JSON-like return structure is described. Given the complexity, it is completely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional path parameter. The schema already explains it clearly. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, but the behavioral context (pure introspection) is indirectly useful. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool introspects the orchestration policy without running the orchestrator, distinguishing it from faf_orchestrate_recommendation. It specifies the verb 'introspect', the resource 'orchestration policy', and the concrete return structure, leaving no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use (to check policy before actual orchestration) and what not to expect (no drift detection, no signals, no receipt). Implicitly contrasts with faf_orchestrate_recommendation by naming it as the sibling that would perform orchestration.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.